Sibby Online

Daschle’s word of dishonor

Ryne McClaren posted a report on a Tim Giago speech. Here is an excerpt of what Giago said:

I knew that if I ran, as well-known as I am, I would take away votes from Tom Daschle. I entered the race in order to refocus Daschle on Indian issues. He followed through on all of his promises, so I dropped out. Since I dropped out, the polls are 50-50 [he's right, more or less -- ed.]. So now the race is tied. He would have lost [if Giago wouldn't have pulled out].

Tim Gaigo said he was running for senate without intending to follow through. Not what I would call someone who understands the meaning of “word of honor”.

We all should understand that Daschle’s words should not be trusted. During the current campaign he says he believes in the Second Amendment, but in DC he considered Rosie O’Donnell to be a poster child for common sense gun control. He claims he is anti-abortion, but in 2002 he was sending out fundraising letters for NARAL that mentioned protecting his pro-choice leadership. He says he has supported middle class tax cuts, but then he voted against those tax cuts and argued that tax cuts cause recessions.

His campaign has a full page ad on page 8B of today’s Argus Leader saying Daschle is a s strong leader and John Thune is a follower because he doesn’t stand up for special interests and specifically mentions drug companies. Tom Daschle has personally benefited from his wife’s lobbying to extend the patent on Claritin.

A leader doesn’t stand for one thing in DC and then comes back to South Dakota and says he is against that position. A leader doesn’t flip flop, but stands consistently for what he believes in.

KELO-TV is a CBS affiliate

It hasn’t been long enough for us to forget about the CBS News Ra^thergate scandal. It would have been unfair to punish the affiliates for that. Yesterday CBS affiliate KELO-TV chewed on SDP for not having his facts straight regarding David Kranz being a moderator at the Monday night debate. Today the co-sponsor, the Argus Leader, runs an ad that states David Kranz is a moderator.

If KELO-TV wants to regain some of their lost credibility, then they need to drop David Kranz from their debate.

Argus Leader performs abortion

The Argus Leader has performed an abortion on the democratic process. The reason I subscribed to the paper, was to provide myself with an opportunity to voice my political opinions and factual findings in this State’s largest newspaper. Since August 8, the paper has stripped us of that important opportunity. My September letter was not printed, but supposedly put online. I have to take their word, since I can’t find it.

After today, I am not sure I should take their word for anything. After they misused me in their Sunday’s Linda Daschle propaganda piece, I called Randell Beck on Monday morning and asked if I could rebut the report. He said I could write a Readers Forum op-ed.

I spend the entire Monday evening writing, re-writing, and working feverishly to keep my column within 500 words. Remember I was trying to rebut a column that was over 2,500 words. On Tuesday morning I emailed it to Randell Beck. This morning I got this email form Beck:

Steve: thanks for your thoughts. Unfortunately, back in August, editorial page editor Chuck Baldwin wrote a column back in August telling readers that we would not use the readers forum for political back and forth. I'm going to stick with that guideline; as you'll be able to tell, we have reserved that space for non-political debate, which i think is important. If you would like to revise your forum down to a regular letter, I'd be more than happy to work hard to get it in. I realize that means taking it down more than you would like, but that's the deal. Let me know how you'd like to proceed. thanks. Randell

So political debate is not important (during the most important senate race in the country), especially when it doesn't fit the worldview of the editorial postion of the paper. Here is the aborted column:

The October 3, 2004 front page Argus Leader report on Linda Daschle’s lobbying activities rightfully mentions in the headline an “ethical minefield” facing our current Senator and his spouse. The report also mentioned the Washington DC power couple’s blue jaguar and very, very, very big $3 million dollar mansion (not $1.9 million – I heard they remodeled).

But that is as much credit as is deserved. The rest of the 2,519 word article fails to mention exactly what ethical minefield Mrs. Daschle faces. Instead the report defended Mrs. Daschle’s job and neglected to cover Senator Daschle’s extremely awkward balancing act between serving as our state’s representative and personally profiting from special interest lobbying.

As a South Dakota resident and a politically involved voter, I find it extremely disturbing that Senator Daschle’s wife lobbies the very institution he serves as his party’s leader. The Daschle defenders, as well as the Argus, will quickly point out that Mrs. Daschle remains clear of the Senate side of our U.S. Capitol as she lobbies other members of Congress for the causes she is paid to promote. Yet Larry Makinson with the Center for Responsive Politics has said this about Mrs. Daschle’s lobbying, “The House is attached to the Senate the last time I checked - they're in the same building. There won't be a member who doesn't know she is married to Daschle - that's the bottom line. It almost puts her husband in an awkward position. What's he going to do, vote against her?” And the Center for Responsive Politics is a non-partisan watchdog organization.

On issue after issue, whether it be the B&L Aviation plane crash that left unanswered questions about the influence of both Daschle or Mrs. Daschle’s questionable lobbying for pharmaceutical giant Schering-Plough, the Argus chose to simply gloss over instead of digging deep. This paper says digging deep is important on issues regarding Bill Janklow, then why not with the Daschles.

I truly believe that it is in the best interest of our democracy that voters understand that each evening, after Senate debate on airline security or prescription drug coverage, our senator drives to a home in a Jaguar. Neither of which he could possibly afford without the income his wife earns working as a lobbyist, and for the same interests he just finished voting on. This isn’t Internet conspiracy theory…important public policies hang in the balance.

This article is yet another reason why I no longer rely on the Argus Leader for my news. With so many alternative resources available to us in this information age, I believe the old media (the Argus Leader and CBS News included) have seen their best days. It is disappointing that the Argus Leader wasted over two hours of my time and such a good opportunity to inform the inquiring voters on the many uncovered minefields that have been dug up in the deep far reaches of the information highway. Instead this paper simply reinforced the impression of a bias that is already so widely known.

Chuck Baldwin did not say, "we would not use the readers forum for political back and forth". He said, "At this point, we aren't planning to publish longer guest columns, we call them 'Readers Forums,' promoting or tearing tearing down candidates." I say the editorial policy is designed to control the bias on their editorial pages to the same degree they control the bias on their news pages. They certainly didn't want Steve Sibson to get into the way of an Argus "good story".

Randell Beck wants to know where I want to go from here. Right know I am releasing some steam by blogging this crap. This is preventing me from canceling my subscription, after all, we do not seem to agree that the democratic process should include Argus Leader readers. Furthermore, a true Republican should not vote for Tom Daschle or subscribe to his newsletter.

Argus Leader vs Rapid City Journal

Compare this Argus Leader report with this Rapid City Journal report on Tom Daschle’s attempt to misrepresent his position on abortion. Take special note of this comment by Mel Olson from the Argus report:

"Most people aren't pro-life; they're really limited pro-choice. They say, 'I'm against abortion, but if it's a deal of rape or incest, or the life of the mother ... then it should be up to the mother.' "

His logic is more defined in his 9/27 op-ed from the Mitchell Daily Republic:

It seems to me that there are four positions that one can take on abortion: pro-abortion, pro-choice, pro-life and pro-birth. Pro-choice people are unfairly labeled as “pro-abortion” and pro-birth people are inaccurately labeled as “pro-life.”

Since that op-ed, there have been three responses critical of Mel Olson’s attempt to distort the issue of abortion. The first was by Paul Rasmussen, M.D on 10/04. The second was by Rev. Keith Nash on 10/06. The third was today by Sean Flynn, assistant history professor at Dakota Weslyan University:

Like Rep. Olson, segregationists argued that, once reached, a Supreme Court decision is unchallengeable After the Supreme Court legalized segregation in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), Southern politicians discouraged further legal challenges to the social policies of the Southern states. If they could have seen into the future, segregationists might have borrowed the constitutional logic that Rep. Olson applies to abortion rights and, applying it to their cause, asserted that segregation was “protected by the United States’ Constitution, which office holders have sworn to uphold.”

Southern congressmen and state legislators might have asked their colleagues to, in the words of Rep. Olson, “take their constitutional oaths seriously” and allow this incessant talk of integration to die on the vine.

That was in response to this excerpt from Mel Olson’s column:

Politicians cannot legally eliminate your constitutional right to abortion any more than they could outlaw the practice of Christianity. Both are protected by the United States’ Constitution, which office holders have sworn to uphold. The only constitutional way to alter the present state of affairs is to amend the Constitution.

Flynn goes on to completely destroys Mel Olson’s false statement

Tolerant teachers like Rep. Olson are grateful that NAACP lawyers rejected the advice of white segregationists. Fifty-eight years and nine segregation cases after the Plessy decision, the Court once again revisited school segregation, and this time, in the famous Brown v. Board of Education decision (1954) reversed 58 years of bad law.

With Brown, the government of the United States, dismissing Rep. Olson’s philosophy that “[t]he only way to alter the present state of affairs is to amend the Constitution,” chose to rectify bad law through a Supreme Court decision.

The civil rights lawyers who tackled school segregation understood the nature of constitutional law, best-expressed by former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes. “We are under a constitution,” wrote Hughes, “but the constitution is what the judges say it is.”

Like the lawyers who challenged Supreme Court decisions that denied African-Americans their humanity, those of us who describe ourselves as pro-life want the Supreme Court to revisit, and if necessary, to revisit again and again the Court’s Roe v. Wade decision (1973) that denies the unborn their humanity.

We want our day in Court to examine the civil rights of the unborn and determine if life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are being extended to all of the living.

I attended the House State Affairs committee hearing on HB1191 last session. Mel Olson was on that committee. It was a great debate and I respected Olson’s civil debate on the issue. But he was wrong to say that what we were doing was unconstitutional and would cost South Dakota taxpayers hundreds of thousand dollars, just to be told what we were doing was unconstitutional.

It is because of Tom Daschle’s refusal to allow an up or down vote on conservative judicial nominations, due to the Democrat’s litmus tests on abortion, that caused the people of South Dakota not to have a choice on whether to ban abortion or not. In this respect, Tom Daschle is not pro-choice…he is pro-abortion, anti-democracy, and is responsible for preserving the tyranny of the judicial activists who continue to legislate from the bench.

Yes, let’s tell the truth

(NOTE: I have added an update to this post.)
SDP got an email from Mark Millage, news director for KELO-TV:

You need to know, and you need to let your readers know, that Dave Kranz is not, and never has been, the moderator in the upcoming KELO-TV/Argus Leader US Senate debate (Monday, 10/11). Steve Hemmingsen of KELO-TV is the moderator. Steve (representing KELO) and Dave (representing the Argus) will be asking the questions. This was the format agreed upon by both candidates. I don't know where your misinformation came from, but thought you and your readers deserved to know the truth. Please contact me if you have any further questions.

I am really glad that is cleared up. (grin)

My question to Mark Millage:

Since our readers now know the truth, maybe the viewers of your debate should know the truth about David Kranz. Well you tell your viewers about his college days with Tom Daschle? Well you tell them about his activities while managing editor of the Mitchell Daily Republic, including his collaboration with the Abourezk office? Will you tell your viewers about all the truths our readers know about David Kranz?

Anybody else have questions here is his email: [email protected]

UPDATE: SDP has even more on David Kranz's close relationship with George McGovern. Here is an excerpt from a June 7, 2003 column of Noel Hamiel, publisher of the Mitchell Daily Republic:

At the same time, newspapers should have no reservations about their reporters’ backgrounds being made public. Newspapers need to be accountable. It’s about watching the watchdog.

For example, while Kranz’s long and friendly relationship with George McGovern is well known, reporters who work in one state for most of their careers are going to form relationships with some of the folks they cover.

Not only does "newspapers should have no reservations about their reporters’ backgrounds being made public", so does KELO-TV in regard to their debate panelists.

UPDATE: My email to Mark Millage was not responded to.

Dakota Blog Alliance expands

Wes Roth has joined the Dakota Blog Alliance. I previously noticed his great posts and had already blogrolled him. It will be great to have more west river South Dakota input.

All money went to NARAL!!!

I just got this email:

In this article in the Rapid City Journal Sen. Daschle is quoted as saying, regarding the letter of appeal that he signed and that NARAL e-mailed out on October 29, 2002: "That letter was not intended to be a fund-raiser for NARAL whatsoever."

I have copied and pasted the original e-mailed NARAL-Daschle appeal of Oct. 29, 2002, into the bottom of this e-mail, because you might not have seen it in this form. I hope the active links come through at your end. There were originally six active links in the letter -- all of which took the clicker directly to the NARAL website pages where funds could be donated by credit card, etc. Most of these links are now dead ends, but the one just above Daschle's sign off still works, and it still goes to a form for giving money to NARAL's Save the Senate campaign. There was NO link to the Carnahan campaign in the letter -- no way to give money to her campaign.

The entire thrust of the letter was that contributing to NARAL's Save the Senate Campaign would help preserve the "pro-choice leadership of the Senate," referring specifically to Daschle's then-status as Majority Leader and the ability of the majority leadership to block "harmful legislation," referring to pro-life legislation. Indeed, when he was Majority Leader in 2001-02, Daschle succeeded in killing five major pieces of pro-life legislation that had passed the House of Representatives by denying them votes in the Senate. These were the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act ("Laci and Conner's Law"), the Human Cloning Prohibition Act, the Child Custody Protection Act, and the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act. The first two measures became law only after Daschle lost the Majority Leader status at the beginning of the current Congress and was no longer able to prevent them from coming to the floor.

The one active link had this message:

Dear Friend,

Please help NARAL protect reproductive freedom and choice. NARAL is currently working to stop anti-choice forces from taking over leadership of the U.S. Senate on November 5 - something I know you care about as much as I do!

DVT in NRO

Jon Lauck of DVT has a column in National Review Online. Excerpt:

Despite years of leading the partisan Democratic caucus in the Senate, Daschle is now attempting another political pivot during his reelection bid. For almost a year, he has been saying he supports President Bush 80 percent of the time, and he's running an ad of him hugging the president. Daschle left the Democratic convention in Boston before Kerry spoke and has avoided getting tangled up with Kerry. In South Dakota, Kerry has an unfavorable rating of 50 percent. Daschle's carefully constructed image as a bipartisan and neighborly park ranger, however, is more and more difficult to pull off in an age of partisan rancor, in which he serves as the president's chief nemesis.

Read the whole thing.

Argus Leader’s bias on drought issue

The Argus Leader has a report on the status of current legislation to increase drought aid by $3 billion. Note I say “increase”. In 2003 the Republicans added $3 billion in drought relief to the already behemoth farm bill. What the Argus Leader does not report is Daschle’s voting record on that funding. During an August 6th post, I covered the voting history. Excerpt:

On January 22, 2003 an amendment to the 2003 Omnibus bill that provided over $3 billion in drought relief passed 59 to 35 . Both Daschle and Tim Johnson voted against that. Later Daschle introduced an amendment that increased the funding to $6 billion. It failed 39 to 56. So much for Daschle's clout.The next day the entire Omnibus bill passed 69 to 29. Both Daschle and Johnson voted “Nay”. But check out the press release Tim Johnson issued. Excerpt:

Washington, DC-U.S. Senators Tim Johnson (D-SD) and Tom Daschle (D-SD) announced the Senate passage of the Fiscal Year 2003 (FY03) Omnibus Appropriations Bill tonight and said some 60 South Dakota projects within the bill have fared well.

"Despite major budget cuts from Republicans, I am very pleased that South Dakota projects are receiving almost full funding," said Johnson. "South Dakota has never been in such a powerful position with my seat on the Appropriations Committee and Senator Daschle as Democratic Leader. This can been seen in how well our South Dakota projects have fared in the Omnibus bill that will fund economic development initiatives, water projects, transportation improvement and critical projects that will help improve the quality of life on Native American Reservations across South Dakota."

"I am ecstatic that Tim and I were able to work together to deliver funding for so many essential projects all across South Dakota," Daschle said. "From the Lewis and Clark Rural Water Project to Wakpa Sica, these funds are truly an investment in South Dakota's future prosperity."

After listing some of the funding, Johnson ended with this:

"Clearly I am pleased that very few of our projects received cuts," said Johnson. "This is good news for South Dakota. Despite Republican control Senator Daschle and I have continued to fight to have South Dakota's priorities heard. I look forward to passing this legislation."

At least Johnson keeps his word. After conference with the House, the bill was voted on for the last time on February 13, 2003. Johnson was among the 76 that voted “Yea”. Daschle was among the 20 that voted “Nay”.

Another issue that the Argus Leader did not mention was covered yesterday by SDP:

Gene S. Williams, a rancher who appears in the most recent Daschle drought ad attacking Thune, received $15,907 in disaster payments in 2002. This is the same year he attacks John Thune for purportedly failing to do something for people suffering from the drought. That $15,907 is obviously money out of the $1 billion in assistance Thune pushed through that year. In 2002, Gene Williams got $15,907 in disaster payments because of John Thune's efforts. He got $0 from Tom Daschle.

And of course major disaster assistance was not passed and signed into law until 2003, AFTER Daschle lost his majority leadership position.

Note that SDP also covered the first point I made in his last sentence...the Republicans provided drought relief just months after the 2002 elections. No thanks to Daschle.

Another point not mentioned is the fact that John Thune is not in the House where the funding is tied up…Stephanie Herseth is. To be intellectually honest, Daschle and his newsletter (the Argus Leader) should be holding her accountable not Thune. As stated by SDP, John Thune did provide drought assistance in 2002 when he was in the House. Daschle and Herseth have only whined about it.

Also it should be noted that the current funding was passed in the Senate thanks to Majority Leader BIll Frist. Remember that Frist was in South Dakota earlier this year on behalf of John Thune. Thune should get credit for that.

I also have to take issue with Daschle’s point that the Florida hurricane disaster is the same as the drought disaster in South Dakota. The people of Florida do not have a large Farm Bill to draw assistance from. The Daschle Democrats are quick to whine about the deficit, but do not hold themselves accountable for the increased spending they continue to promote.

This issue has so much misinformation thanks to the con job by the Daschle campaign’s negative attack ad and the bias reporting of the Daschle Daily…I mean the Argus Leader.

UPDATE: Speaking of Daschle con jobs, check out what's happening on the abortion issue at SDP and DVT. Don't miss this.

Daschle Cheerleader to moderate debate

SDP has posted a complaint the Daschle supporters made about a moderator in 2002:

Remember that the people who are presently running Daschle's campaign had local television anchor Mitch Krebs pulled from a debate in 2002 because he was MC at a GOP event. The same standard should be applied to Kranz.

That same SDP post has linked to Bombshells that go much farther than just being an MC. Read the whole thing. After that check out what David Kranz said on 2/16/1980 when he was managing editor of the Mitchell Daily Republic regarding McGovern’s 1980 re-election announcement at Mitchell’s Corn Palace:

The McGovern rally was full of dynamics, with McGovern at his sharpest, Rep. Tom Daschle giving his best speech he’s ever delivered, and Byrd charging the packed audience with lines so powerful you might have imagined you were in a good ol’ fashion revival meeting.

Kranz seemed to have had a good time at the “good ol’ fashion revival meeting” with speakers Tom Daschle and Sen. Robert Byrd.

While Kranz was still at the MDR, a 11/8/1980 opinion piece made this bold statement about the new leader of the Democrat party:

Tom Daschle has to be regarded the new leader of the Democratic party in light of his overwhelming victory. That makes him a hard act to beat for Clint Roberts in 1982 when the two will likely challenge each other. Daschle has been labeled the heir to McGovern by the people in power positions in the party. They privately groom him for a race with Larry Pressler in 1984 – one they are convinced will be winable at that point. And Daschle seems ready to face that confrontation.

I would say being a cheerleader of the candidate would disqualify David Kranz as a moderator of a debate well before a MC of a GOP event would.